JUDGMENT ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J. - Through this petition under Section 435 to be read with Section 439, Cr.P.C. Ehsan Ullah petitioner has called in question the order dated 14.10.2010 handed down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat through which he has allowed application filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to exhibit some documents.
2. Precisely, the germane events forming the structural background of this revision petition are that the petitioner alongwith 14 others being an accused was booked in case F.I.R. No. 79/93, dated 05.07.1993 registered at Police Station Khurrianwala, District Gujrat for offences under Sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. One Mst. Iqbal Begum also instituted a private Complaint from the accused/petitioner side in respect of offences under Sections 302/324/437/148/149, P.P.C. Both the cases were tried together by the learned Additional Sessions Judge who consequently acquitted both the parties. In the trial of F.I.R. No. 79/93, 05.07.1993 registered at Police Station Khurrianwala, District Gujrat for offence under Sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C, after the closure of prosecution evidence the statement of the accused under Section 342, Cr.P.C, was recorded and case was fixed for final arguments but the petitioner absented from the learned Trial Court. The case of the petitioner was separated under Section 512, Cr.P.C, and judgment to the extent of the rest accused present before learned Trial Court was passed. Both the rival parties filed their respect appeals against acquittal out of which the appeal filed by Mst. Iqbal Begum from accused side was dismissed for non-prosecution whereas the appeal filed by Muhammad Aslam complainant of F.I.R, was disposed of having not been pressed by a learned Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 12.08.2010 with a direction to the learned Trial Court to hear the arguments on behalf of the petitioner and decide the case according to law. The petitioner had absconded from the learned Trial Court at the time of pronouncement of judgment. He was arrested and produced before the learned Trial Court to face the trial against him when an application was filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to exhibit report of Chemical Examiner, report of Serologist, report of Forensic Science Laboratory as well as judgment of august Supreme Court. The application was allowed vide impugned order dated 14.10.2010 passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, this revision petition before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is result of misreading and non-perusal of the record because the documents sought to be exhibited were already part of the record, they were perused by the learned Trial Court at the time of pronouncement of judgment to the extent of co-accused of the petitioner and no exceptional circumstance was available with the learned Trial Court to exhibit such documents. At the time of deciding the case the learned Trial Court had observed in his judgment that the empties of the fire-arms were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for their comparison which shows that the report regarding comparison or otherwise was not available at that time. It was none else but the learned DDA who had himself closed the prosecution evidence and shut down any further possibility of adducing evidence on behalf of the prosecution or submission of any new documents before the learned Trial Court to be made part of record in the trial of the petitioner. Moreover the application to exhibit the documents was neither moved by the complainant of F.I.R, namely Muhammad Aslam nor the same was filed by the public prosecutor but the same has been moved by injured witness and relative of the deceased, the material fact, was not taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order. The learned Trial Court has ignored very essential aspect of the matter that the Hon'ble High Court had only directed the learned Trial Court to hear arguments and decide the case but the learned Trial Court had gone beyond the direction made by the Hon'ble High Court. It will be an act of discrimination if the documents in question were taken into consideration against the petitioner at such a belated stage which were not relied upon by the learned Trial Court to the extent of other accused of the F.I.R. If the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is not set aside a great miscarriage of justice will be done with the petitioner.
4. On the other hand the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 contends that accused Ehsan was nominated in the F.I.R., he was armed with gun 12 bore at the time of occurrence a fatal fire-arm injury to the deceased was assigned to him, four empties of 12 bore gun (Ex. Pl/1-4) were taken into possession by the investigating officer vide recovery memo. Ex.PC and the empties were sent to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory on 07.07.1993. The accused/petitioner was arrested in connection with this case on 16.07.1993, he got recovered weapon of offence (gun 12 bore) on the same day which was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison and the report in this regard is positive, thus, the same is very much important for the decision of this case. According to the provisions of Section 510, Cr.P.C, the reports of Forensic Science Laboratory or Serologist are per se admissible in evidence which cannot be declined to be exhibited. Even Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan extends equal protection of law to all the parties in all circumstances, thus, any act of curbing evidence from prosecution side would not be in apt with law and Constitution. While referring Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and Volume-III, Rule 2, Chapter 1(E) of the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore the learned counsel maintains that the criminal act committed by an accused persons does not cause injurious effect only upon the victim of offence but its effect extends to whole of society and State, therefore, Criminal Courts are bestowed powers to secure evidence at any stage of the trial irrespective of any intentional or unintentional lapse on the part of the complainant, the investigating officer or the prosecuting counsel. The present petitioner namely Ehsan was not a respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 1573 of 2000 and even otherwise the true spirit of the order dated 12.08.2010 passed by a learned Division Bench of this Court is to save the parties from a de novo trial rather than giving a clean chit to the petitioner to escape himself from material evidence against him. Section 540, Cr.P.C, provide the Courts emphatic power to summon evidence at any stage of the trial before pronouncement of judgment and if the statute provides a mode to the Court to be adopted by utilizing its jurisdiction then the Courts while interpreting the law cannot deviate from the statute but are duty bound to elaborate the point of ponder while remaining within the four comers of statute. It is not a case of rival party that the documents to be exhibited are not related to the present case or are immaterial.' At the fag end it has been argued that revisional jurisdiction is a discretionary relief which always comes to and of the justice and not to frustrate the parties. Reliance is placed on the cases of Khan Muhammad Yusuf Khan Khattak v. S.M. Ayub and 2 others (PLD 1973 SC 160), Ibrahim alias Ibro alias Khalifa v. The State (1968 SCMR 1240), Utility Store Corporation, Government of Pakistan through Regional Manager, Utility Store Corporation, Rawalphzdi Region, Model Town, Islamabad v. Muhammad Nazir Khan and ,another (2003 P.Cr.L.J. 185), Zameer Ali Shah v. Azhar Haider Shah alias Tonni and another (1984 P.Cr.L.J. 1923), The State v. Muhammad Yaqoob and others (2001 SCMR 308), Abdul Latif Aasi v. The State (2001 P.Cr.R. 548) and Saleem Raza and 31 others v. The State (PLD 2007 Karachi 139).
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the documents appended with this revision petitioner as well as the case-law cited by the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 it has been observed by me that the petitioner was an accused person whereas respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are witnesses of case F.I.R. No. 79/93, dated 05.07.1993 registered at Police Station Khurrianwala, District Gujrat for offences under Sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. Admittedly accused Ehsan/petitioner was nominated in the F.I.R, with specific role of causing fire-arm injury to the deceased with a gun .12 bore (Ex.PC). Four empties of 12 bore gun (Ex. Pl/1-4) were collected from the scene of the crime by the investigating officer and were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.PC. After arrest of the petitioner on 07.07.1993 the fire-arm was recovered from him and the same was also sent to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory on the same day for comparison and the report in this regard is in the positive. All the shows the reports of Chemical Examiner, Serologist, and Forensic Science Laboratory are very much relevant in this case and according to Section 510, Cr.P:C. They are also per se admissible in evidence. Thus, the learned Trial Court is well-justified to hold that documents be exhibited and I too have not seen any exception to deviate from the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Court. The relevant portion of the observations made by the learned Trial Court is as under:- "The present Court find that in the case in hand the statements of as many 20 witnesses from prosecution side have been recorded whereafter the Statements of accused were recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C, including present accused namely Ehsan Ullah son of Wajayat Khan on 19.11.1995 and the accused inspire of getting opportunity to produce evidence in defence he thereafter opted to give up the witness got to be produced in defence evidence, however certain documents were produced in defence. At the time of final arguments and judgment this accused did not appear before the Court and-to the extent of rest of the accused the judgment was pronounced by the learned Predecessor Court. The present Court further find that the report of Chemical Examiner, Report of Serologist and report of Forensic Science Laboratory are already available on record since the year 1993 but neither in this regard from prosecution statement of Public Prosecutor has been got recorded nor (he same documents were got exhibited. The citation which has been relied upon from the prosecution wherein principle has been settled that in a criminal case an intentional or unintentional lapse oh the part of complainant, the Investigating Officer or the Prosecuting counsel is not to. Be allowed to stand in the way of a Trial Court to rectify that lapse by calling its evidence on its on if such evidence can have a bearing on the determination of guilt or innocence of the accused person. Such a power has to be conceded to a Criminal Court in the larger interest of community at large and with said context the stage of a trial appears to be irrelevant to exercise of such powers of a Court. A Judge in a criminal trial is not merely a disinterested auditor of the contest between the prosecution and the defence, but it is his duty to elucidate points left in obscurities by either side, intentionally or unintentionally, to come to a clear understanding of the actual events that occurred and to remove obscurities as far as possible. The copy of the judgment of apex Supreme Court of Pakistan is decision between parties which is attested copy of judicial record and public document and accordingly the remaining reports sought to be got exhibited in evidence are original reports in the Case in hand which all are very much relevant for purpose decision of the case and if said documents come in evidence same would help the Court in the proper and final adjudication of the case and since to said extent supplementary statement has to be got recorded of accused Under Section 342, Cr.P.C. So, the case of accused would never prejudice. So, in the said state of affairs the application in hand is hereby accepted."
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has laid great emphasis on the judgment passed by a learned Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1573 of 2000 wherein in paragraphs Nos.
3 and 5 it has been observed as under:- "7. It is further contended that as far as the accused namely Ehsan is concerned, who is not respondent in this appeal, but he also absconded after his statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C, was recorded and the arguments were heard, that he has been arrested now, therefore, a direction be given to the learned Trial Court to hear the arguments on his behalf as well and decide the case in accordance with law without being prejudiced by any observation made in this appeal whereby the impugned judgment has been challenged.
8. Neither learned counsel for the respondents nor the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has any objection to the (drove submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant; therefore, order accordingly.
9. As far as respondents Nos. 2 to 13 are concerned, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not press this appeal to their extent." and states that this Court has already laid down yardstick to conclude the trial in a particular manner, therefore, now at this belated stage order to exhibit documents by the learned Trial Court is unjustified. In this context I may observe here that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has not prohibited the learned Trial Court to exhibit any documents which is necessary for the just conclusion of the trial. The law is quite settled on the point that it always rests with the learned Trial Court to reach to a just conclusion of the case by adopting all possible measures and taking into consideration all the relevant and material evidence. The superior Courts of the country interpret the law to facilitate the lower Courts in dispensing, with fair justice among the masses and not to frustrate the justice in the society. Through the impugned order the learned Trial Court has deemed it necessary to exhibit the documents in question to reach to a just and fair conclusion of the trial, thus, this Court would not like to create hurdles in the way of learned Trial Court or to constrain it from making shortcut in conclusion of the trial. A plethora of judgments is available on the point that the trial even before pronouncement of judgment if it thinks it fit to reach to a just conclusion of the case. It has also made clear from Rule 2, Chapter-1(E) of the Lahore High Court Rules and Orders Volume-III that intentional or unintentional lapse on the part of either party is always oversighted by the remove any obscurity if comes in its way. If this is not enough Article 161 of the Qunan-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 is very much clear that a Judge has were powers to order for production of any document or thing and neither the parties nor their agents shall be entitled to make objection. Thus, the learned Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order to exhibit the documents mentioned above.
6. Apart from what has been discussed above I have not seen any jurisdictional infirmity, illegality of approach, irregularity of procedure or perversity of reasoning in the impugned order dated 14.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, hence, this revision petition having no merits stands dismissed.